I was talking with some people the other day about this and I was hoping to get some help on this.

When the entire Proskomide is done, and at the time of the Consecration, when the consecration happens is the ENTIRE proskomide then Christ, or JUST the amnos?

One person has mentioned that in the Proskomide, the Amnos is mentioned throughout the Proskomide as Christ, but the other elements have a DIFFERENT intention. The piece for the Theotokos is for the Theotokos, etc. So at the Consecration, the argument was made that ONLY the Amnos is Christ, and the rest BECAUSE of the different intent are their own elements.

I was told in a class that ALL of the particles are Christ, down to the last particle.

If only the amnos were Christ, then we would not put all the particles in the chalice and give them out as communion. We also are so careful not to let even one crumb go missing from the diskos. If it were not Christ why all the fuss?

I have honestly never heard such an idea that only the amnos is Christ.

If only the amnos were Christ, then we would not put all the particles in the chalice and give them out as communion. We also are so careful not to let even one crumb go missing from the diskos. If it were not Christ why all the fuss?

I have honestly never heard such an idea that only the amnos is Christ.

I have. No, it didn't make sense.

The whole idea of having the commemorations with the various praticulars is to represent the various members of the Body of Christ. What kind of theology would support the idea that those particles do not become Christ?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Well the person I was discussing this with said that you should NOT put all the particles in the chalice and give it out as communion, b/c it is not communion in the first place.

His major argument was the idea of intent. what is the intent of the piece/particle? The amnos, all throughout the proskomide is Christ, whereas the other items/particles are not.

Let's say that this person is right. my question then was: why would you add the particles AFTERWARDS? Why not just partake of them yourself WITHOUT putting them in the chalice? If it is a question of intent, and their intent is NOT communion, then why put them in the chalice at all?

This was one of my counter-arguments. I'm just trying to think through it with others...

I mean...what is the argument that ALL of the particles are Christ? - The body of Christ cannot be divided, etc. - the counter argument to this was that: hence how the LAMB only is broken (yet not divided, etc.)

I also just thought of the fact that throughout the liturgy, after the antimension is opened, i've seen priests clean the antimension and MAKE SURE to eat any particles that are laying in the antimension. If not all of the particles are Christ, why would the priest do that? Just in case? There's gota be something more to it...

If only the amnos were Christ, then we would not put all the particles in the chalice and give them out as communion. We also are so careful not to let even one crumb go missing from the diskos. If it were not Christ why all the fuss?

I have honestly never heard such an idea that only the amnos is Christ.

I have. No, it didn't make sense.

The whole idea of having the commemorations with the various praticulars is to represent the various members of the Body of Christ. What kind of theology would support the idea that those particles do not become Christ?

Like I just said above...it's a question of intent. I responded by saying that the INTENT is for the whole body of Christ to be there. He said, yes, they are there on the paten, but communion is with Christ....something along those lines.

If only the amnos were Christ, then we would not put all the particles in the chalice and give them out as communion. We also are so careful not to let even one crumb go missing from the diskos. If it were not Christ why all the fuss?

I have honestly never heard such an idea that only the amnos is Christ.

I have. No, it didn't make sense.

The whole idea of having the commemorations with the various praticulars is to represent the various members of the Body of Christ. What kind of theology would support the idea that those particles do not become Christ?

Like I just said above...it's a question of intent. I responded by saying that the INTENT is for the whole body of Christ to be there. He said, yes, they are there on the paten, but communion is with Christ....something along those lines.

When the paten is lifted and said "Thine Own of Thine Own we offer unto Thee" aren't the "other" particles there? What's the intent then?

I'd ask this person what they do with the particles.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

This is one of those examples where piety proves the teaching. Like you said, the priest will eat every last bit of any particle left. We put all the particles in the chalice, as well. He may think that he understands some kind of issue of intent, but piety shows clearly what the Church teaches on the subject.

This sounds like one of those questions where people come up with some weird idea and then try to argue it no matter what. Only you know what this person is like but chances are it's not worth debating with him or her after a certain point.

This is one of those examples where piety proves the teaching. Like you said, the priest will eat every last bit of any particle left. We put all the particles in the chalice, as well. He may think that he understands some kind of issue of intent, but piety shows clearly what the Church teaches on the subject.

This sounds like one of those questions where people come up with some weird idea and then try to argue it no matter what. Only you know what this person is like but chances are it's not worth debating with him or her after a certain point.

Popular piety? I've not seen any one of the bishops I've served with put all the particles in; it was not taught in Teleturgics by either of the two professors I've had (long story, but I ended up being educated on the Divine Liturgy twice, and the other sacraments zero times - it's a good thing I learned so much from dad before getting there); heck, when we did the Liturgy of St. Iakovos and communed people in the ancient style, they had loaves with a huge amnos and no other particles (I saw it in this fashion twice in four years)!

In easily 70%+ of all Liturgies I've attended, the particles (i.e. everything besides the amnos) were not put into the chalice until after communion; and then, only consumed by the celebrant or a deacon.

« Last Edit: January 11, 2009, 12:48:45 AM by cleveland »

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

If only the amnos were Christ, then we would not put all the particles in the chalice and give them out as communion. We also are so careful not to let even one crumb go missing from the diskos. If it were not Christ why all the fuss?

I have honestly never heard such an idea that only the amnos is Christ.

I have. No, it didn't make sense.

The whole idea of having the commemorations with the various praticulars is to represent the various members of the Body of Christ. What kind of theology would support the idea that those particles do not become Christ?

Like I just said above...it's a question of intent. I responded by saying that the INTENT is for the whole body of Christ to be there. He said, yes, they are there on the paten, but communion is with Christ....something along those lines.

When the paten is lifted and said "Thine Own of Thine Own we offer unto Thee" aren't the "other" particles there? What's the intent then?

I'd ask this person what they do with the particles.

This was actually one of their points. What part of the portions is lifted? ONLY the lamb. hence why only the lamb is being consecrated b/c ONLY it is lifted. this was actually one of their supports.

This is one of those examples where piety proves the teaching. Like you said, the priest will eat every last bit of any particle left. We put all the particles in the chalice, as well. He may think that he understands some kind of issue of intent, but piety shows clearly what the Church teaches on the subject.

This sounds like one of those questions where people come up with some weird idea and then try to argue it no matter what. Only you know what this person is like but chances are it's not worth debating with him or her after a certain point.

Well...the person is on this site, and they definitely know what they are talking about. Plus I am not representing them very well at all...

I am wondering what if any theology says that all of the particles are consecrated?

This is one of those examples where piety proves the teaching. Like you said, the priest will eat every last bit of any particle left. We put all the particles in the chalice, as well. He may think that he understands some kind of issue of intent, but piety shows clearly what the Church teaches on the subject.

This sounds like one of those questions where people come up with some weird idea and then try to argue it no matter what. Only you know what this person is like but chances are it's not worth debating with him or her after a certain point.

Popular piety? I've not seen any one of the bishops I've served with put all the particles in; it was not taught in Teleturgics by either of the two professors I've had (long story, but I ended up being educated on the Divine Liturgy twice, and the other sacraments zero times - it's a good thing I learned so much from dad before getting there); heck, when we did the Liturgy of St. Iakovos and communed people in the ancient style, they had loaves with a huge amnos and no other particles (I saw it in this fashion twice in four years)!

In easily 70%+ of all Liturgies I've attended, the particles (i.e. everything besides the amnos) were not put into the chalice until after communion; and then, only consumed by the celebrant or a deacon.

Popular piety? I've not seen any one of the bishops I've served with put all the particles in; it was not taught in Teleturgics by either of the two professors I've had (long story, but I ended up being educated on the Divine Liturgy twice, and the other sacraments zero times - it's a good thing I learned so much from dad before getting there); heck, when we did the Liturgy of St. Iakovos and communed people in the ancient style, they had loaves with a huge amnos and no other particles (I saw it in this fashion twice in four years)!

So you and serb1389 both went to HC and he remembers all the particles being put in and you are saying they teach not to put the particles in? I'm confused.

I am not really interested in what people do at the Liturgy of St James as it is mostly reconstructed anyway (at least that was what I was taught by my Russian liturgics professor who refused to serve it and says it is not in the typikon [at least the Russian one according to him]).

Quote

In easily 70%+ of all Liturgies I've attended, the particles (i.e. everything besides the amnos) were not put into the chalice until after communion; and then, only consumed by the celebrant or a deacon.

So what do they do, just leave them hanging out on the diskos? When do they clean the diskos?

This was actually one of their points. What part of the portions is lifted? ONLY the lamb. hence why only the lamb is being consecrated b/c ONLY it is lifted. this was actually one of their supports.

At "Thy gifts of thine own..." the whole patten is lifted; at "the Holy things for the Holy" only the Amnos is lifted. Precision in point is required for the debate, to be sure.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

So what do they do, just leave them hanging out on the diskos? When do they clean the diskos?

After communion, when the clergy return to the Sanctuary, they put the particles into the Chalice.

I find the debate very interesting considering I've heard a Romanian theologian once argue vehemently that only the portion "IC" of the Lamb is meant for the communion of the people - not even the whole Amnos!

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

I don't read Greek fluently, but the priest I learned to serve with had the Church of Greece received book sitting right next to him, and he put all the particles in before the people's communion. In fact, out of all the liturgies I have seen, I have never seen anyone NOT put the particles in. I wonder if there is some local variation going on here. Maybe someone can quote the relevant page.

I find the debate very interesting considering I've heard a Romanian theologian once argue vehemently that only the portion "IC" of the Lamb is meant for the communion of the people - not even the whole Amnos!

I've heard that before actually. A clergyman read it in a book somewhere that it was done that way at some point or something and tried to argue that to other priests and the other priests were like what are you talking about?? I am going to check some editions and see what they say about this subject.

I find the debate very interesting considering I've heard a Romanian theologian once argue vehemently that only the portion "IC" of the Lamb is meant for the communion of the people - not even the whole Amnos!

I've heard that before actually. A clergyman read it in a book somewhere that it was done that way at some point or something and tried to argue that to other priests and the other priests were like what are you talking about?? I am going to check some editions and see what they say about this subject.

In Hapgood the portion of the lamb for communion for the people is indicated. I don't remember how the other 3/4s are consumned.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Well, the Antiochian Archdiocese's Liturgikon (2nd Ed, 1989, hardbound, Antakya Press) seems to lean on the side of "only the Amnos;" and it seems to give a good explanation for why it happens with the associated prayer...

On page 302 they describe the fraction, and placing of the "IC" into the chalice, and adding of the zeon.On page 304 they describe the communion of the clergy using the "XC" piece. Incidentally, there is no specific mention of any remainder of this piece being placed into the chalice at any time.

On page 306, they cut to the chase. After the communion of the deacon, it says in red (rubric color):

Quote

The deacon kisses the chalice, and the priest replaces it upon the antiminsion. The deacon, with great reverence and care, breaks into small pieces the portions of the Lamb sealed NI and KA, placing them in the chalice saying:

In that we have beheld...

Following this is the taking out and communion of the faithful. Following "O God, save thy people and bless thine inheritence," they continue in red (page 307):

Quote

As the choir chants the appointed post-communion hymn, the priest and deacon enter the sanctuary through the holy doors, and the priest places the chalice on the antiminsion.

The deacon removes the kalima from the chalice, lifts the diskos over the chalice and with the sponge carefully wipes the remaining particles into the chalice, saying:

{Black text}

DEACON:30 By thy precious Blood, O Lord, wash away the sins of thy servants here commemorated, through the intercessions of all thy saints.

30. In some traditions, the deacon holds the diskos above the chalice and says the verses beginning with "In that we have beheld the resurrection..." He then wipes the remaining particles into the chalice, saying, "By thy precious Blood, O Lord..."

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

I use the HOCNA clergy book which is based off the received Greek practice compared with & with reference to the Russian and Romanian, and it has section 30 happening before the communion of the faithful. Fr Justin, formerly of HTM, has a booklet that is just a comparison of all the variations in the typikon so I think I will consult that reference tomorrow after I get done serving liturgy and have some time to sit down with it.

The Holy Cross text seems a bit ambiguous at first; After the communion of the Priest (there are no specific directions for the deacon) it says "The priest then transfers the remaining portions of the consecrated Bread into the holy Cup, saying:

Having beheld..." (pg. 34, HC Press, 1985)

But on the next page (35), after the communion of the faithful, the direction is very clear:

Quote

Priest (Returning to the holy Table, the priest transfers the portions of the Theotokos and of the saints into the holy Cup. Then he does the same for those of the living and the dead saying): Wash away, Lord, by Your holy Blood, the sins of all those commemorated, through the intercessions of the Theotokos and all Your saints. Amen.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Fr Justin, formerly of HTM, has a booklet that is just a comparison of all the variations in the typikon so I think I will consult that reference tomorrow after I get done serving liturgy and have some time to sit down with it.

Interesting reference you have available to you. I'm interested to hear what he has to say... All my Greek Liturgikons that I would trust (I don't trust many of our HC books) are at the office; if I remember, I'll look it up there.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Oh, if it hasn't been obvious, the person alluded to by Serbski is none other than I. He and I started this conversation when he graced my wife and I with his presence on his way back to Boston. It was good seeing him and his wife and our mutual friend from Theological school together; chanting, debating, eating, watching sports. All good times.

I can articulate my "purpose and intent" position tomorrow. Time for bed.

« Last Edit: January 11, 2009, 01:27:21 AM by cleveland »

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

I think it depends on the intent of the priest. In my Church (Byzantine Catholic) pre-cut particles are common and all particles are used to commune the people as the priest intends to consecrate all the particles on the discos. In some parishes the commemoration particles are very small in relation to the communion particles and are placed in the chalice but not used to commune the people and sometimes they are not put into the chalice until after communion.

The Ruthenian Liturgikon directs: "Having taken the particle IC is puts it into the holy chalice; the particle XC is divided for the priest and the deacon. The other two particles: NI and KA break into as many small particles as you forsee will be necessary for those who will receive. It is to be noted that if there are any who wish to partake of the holy mysteries, the priest breaks the two particles, NI KA, into smaller particles and the deacon (with a sponge) puts these and the other particles the other particles together with the consecrated lamb into the holy chalice."

The Ruthenian Liturgikon reflects pre-Nikonian usage. The commemoration particles are a fairly late addition so the older manuscripts do not reference them and this why they are absent from the Liturgy of St. James.

I am not really interested in what people do at the Liturgy of St James as it is mostly reconstructed anyway (at least that was what I was taught by my Russian liturgics professor who refused to serve it and says it is not in the typikon [at least the Russian one according to him]).

The Greek St. James is attested to by manuscript, the Vatican has a ninth century codex. It has been progressively Byzantinized, and this is represented by the ROCOR and Holy Cross versions perhaps that is what your professor meant, but the Archimandrite Ephrem Lash has produced a faithful version: http://www.anastasis.org.uk/lit-james.htm

Essentially, it says to put everything into the chalice before Communion. What's funny in this direction is it says clearly 'the deacon lifts the holy Diskos in his hands and the sponge, placing first the Holy Body and then the rest into the holy Cup...' making a clear distinction between the Amnos and the rest of the particles.

It has the same direction in the second volume (for St. Basil's Liturgy).

« Last Edit: January 11, 2009, 12:01:03 PM by cleveland »

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

It seems like we are centering around liturgical ACTION and not necessarily liturgical meaning. So the Amnos goes in before the rest of the particles, but ARE they all Christ?

Well, how do you mean "are they all Christ?" Do you mean are they all Christ like we are all Christ? Or do you mean are they all Christ like the Amnos is the Body of Christ? We are all partakers of His Body and Blood, and therefore have Christ in us ("not I, but Christ Who is in me"). But (as I had said in our earlier conversation) I wouldn't put a piece of your cheek on the patten, read the prayers, and call it the Body of Christ; it doesn't make you any less a member of Christ's Body - but it's a different role within the Church.

Once they are in the chalice, it is all communion, but what about beforehand? I wonder if Cabasilas or Germanos have something on this...i'm gona go check...

I don't know. At least one of the priests I know who puts all the particles in before Communion will only give people pieces from the Amnos (he doesn't break the Amnos beforehand because he puts all the particles in - this way he knows which is which within the Holy Cup, and will only cut from the Amnos using the spoon for communion of the Faithful).

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

I just flipped through Cabasilas' commentary and didn't see anything in there either way.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

It seems like we are centering around liturgical ACTION and not necessarily liturgical meaning. So the Amnos goes in before the rest of the particles, but ARE they all Christ?

Well, how do you mean "are they all Christ?" Do you mean are they all Christ like we are all Christ? Or do you mean are they all Christ like the Amnos is the Body of Christ? We are all partakers of His Body and Blood, and therefore have Christ in us ("not I, but Christ Who is in me"). But (as I had said in our earlier conversation) I wouldn't put a piece of your cheek on the patten, read the prayers, and call it the Body of Christ; it doesn't make you any less a member of Christ's Body - but it's a different role within the Church..

Yah...i'm not sure what to say to this. I would say that the particles were a member of the body of christ before they were in the chalice. I'm just not getting the whole "take a piece of your cheek" part....sorry!

Once they are in the chalice, it is all communion, but what about beforehand? I wonder if Cabasilas or Germanos have something on this...i'm gona go check...

I don't know. At least one of the priests I know who puts all the particles in before Communion will only give people pieces from the Amnos (he doesn't break the Amnos beforehand because he puts all the particles in - this way he knows which is which within the Holy Cup, and will only cut from the Amnos using the spoon for communion of the Faithful).[/quote]

Yah i'm not so sure about this. What are you saying then? that when the blood mixed with those other particles they were NOT communion? what does that say about the communion in general? I would say this is a dangerous distinction....once it's in the chalice it's all communion, otherwise you start midigating what's eucharist in the chalice and what's not...that's dangerous.

I just flipped through Cabasilas' commentary and didn't see anything in there either way.

i was gona look it up later...it might be somewhere else as well...you should take a look at my Sac. Theology notes too, there might be something in there. I've gota dig my car out right now...i'll be back later to continue the discussion.

Yah i'm not so sure about this. What are you saying then? that when the blood mixed with those other particles they were NOT communion? what does that say about the communion in general? I would say this is a dangerous distinction....once it's in the chalice it's all communion, otherwise you start midigating what's eucharist in the chalice and what's not...that's dangerous.

So what happens if I drop a piece of donut into the Chalice? Is it then the Body of Christ, or just a Donut with the Consecrated Blood of Christ in it? I know the example sounds a bit extreme, but the point is that if the other particles are not intended to be the Body of Christ, then when they enter the Chalice they aren't the Body of Christ. So the underlying question still needs to be answered: are the other particles the Body of Christ or not?

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

1,I never heard the theory of "wahtever on the diskon become Christ". I think it's common sense ammon clergies (no matter greeks or russians )that only the Amnos is intended to be consecrated.And in the church ,the "Soma" always be distinguished from the "merides". I never never heard that the meris of Theotokos ,the merides of saints and angels be called "soma".

2,Yes,particles should be put into potirion after the communion of people ,during the prayer :"Ἀπόπλυνον, Κύριε, τὰ ἁμαρτήματα τῶν ἐνθάδε μνημονευθέντων δούλων σου τῷ αἵματί σου τῷ ἁγίῳ πρεσβείαις τῆς Θεοτόκου καὶ πάντων σου τῶν Ἁγίων. Ἀμὴν "But,unfortunately,in many greek parishes,priest put all into the chalice before communion of people(one of many "bad liturgical habits" of some greeks).But even in this case,priest only commune people from the amnos.There is a small skill on it: in the parish where priest put particles afterward,the priest cut the "NI" and "KA" into small pieces and put them in the chalice for the people. But if the priest put all into chalice before communion,he do not divide"NI" and "KA" into small portions ,but put them two as whole,when he commune peole,"excavate" portion by spoon directly from big loafs of "NI" and "KA" .In this way,he'll not confuse the Amnos from particles.

Quote

a Romanian theologian once argue vehemently that only the portion "IC" of the Lamb is meant for the communion of the people - not even the whole Amnos!

The "IC" be put into potirion first,and be kept till the end of liturgy,be consumed with all remainds after the liturgy. Since "IC"——IHCOYC——symbolise the eternal ypostasis and Godhead of Logos Who is alpha and omega.So ,this portion come into potirion firstly and be consumed lastly.The "XC" be received by clergies(bishops,priests,deacons).Since "XC"——XPICTOC——is the anointed one, clergies are anointed by the Divine Charisma during their ordination,their own small pentecost .The "NI"and"KA" are for people,the victorious laos of God,who along with Christ conquered the death and corruption through their baptism.

Yah i'm not so sure about this. What are you saying then? that when the blood mixed with those other particles they were NOT communion? what does that say about the communion in general? I would say this is a dangerous distinction....once it's in the chalice it's all communion, otherwise you start midigating what's eucharist in the chalice and what's not...that's dangerous.

So what happens if I drop a piece of donut into the Chalice? Is it then the Body of Christ, or just a Donut with the Consecrated Blood of Christ in it? I know the example sounds a bit extreme, but the point is that if the other particles are not intended to be the Body of Christ, then when they enter the Chalice they aren't the Body of Christ. So the underlying question still needs to be answered: are the other particles the Body of Christ or not?

To answer this question in short...YES it would become the Body and Blood of Christ. Why is it that we cover the cup and diskos? why is it that we shake the aer for the Creed? Why is it that some chalices come with a metal cover, which is placed over the chalice all the way until communion? so that this kind of thing doesn't happen, BECAUSE by virtue of it being the body and blood, everything within the chalice is body and blood.

To answer Elpidophoros and others, here are some things from Fr. Alkivides Calivas' third volume "Aspects of Orthodox Worship" (pgs. 207-226 are the part I am focusing on):

Quote

...the epiclesis, the invocation to the Father to send down his Holy Spirit upon the liturgical assembly and upon the gifts that have been set forth, that they may be changed to be the Body and Blood of Christ. (pg. 210)

Notice here he says upon the liturgical ASSEMBLY and the GIFTS that have been set forth. Also keep in mind that at the petition of the epiklisis we say "changing them by your Holy Spirit" replied by "amen, amen amen"...notice that we are using the plural here, not the singular. So if the consecration was only the amnos, wouldn't it be singular?

Quote

And the praise leads to the petition. And the petition leads to the epiclesis, which in turn, through the consecration of the gifts, begins the fulfillment of the Divine Liturgy, the essence of what lies in communion, in our partaking of Christ and our union with each other. (pg. 210)

Notice again, how he says here the "consecration of the gifts" ...being plural...

Quote

At every Eucharist through the bread and wine - the distinctly unique human foods, and therefore symbols of human life - we offer humbly to GOd our life in exchange for his, which he freely gives to us through the consecrated Eucharistic elements, which are no longer bread and wine, nor symbols or icons, but the very Body and Blood of the risen Christ, having been sanctified and transformed by the power of the Father through the Holy Spirit. (pg. 211)

So here we see that the "bread" which technically was the WHOLE prosphoron, broken up into its various elements, is consecrated ENTIRELY to be the Body and Blood of Christ, NO LONGER BEING JUST BREAD, but fully Christ.

Quote

In the Eucharist, Christ acts to make us members of his own body that we may "grow up in every way into him" (Ephes. 4:15). The mystery of our incorporation into the body of Christ begins with baptism, through our immersion into the life-giving font. (pg. 212)

I added this to make the distinction of HOW we become the body of christ, as a counter-argument against Cleveland's whole point of putting a piece of "cheek" on the patten.

Quote

In the Eucharist, Christ is forever present and immediate to his people; and his saving work remains constant and operative for every generation in every place, until he comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead.

So yah...if something drops in the Eucharist, it is eucharist. Otherwise, this statement above becomes no longer true.

Serbski, I hate to burst your bubble, but I spoke with my proistamenos, who took Liturgics, Sacramental Theology, and Teleturgics from Calivas, and Calivas told them that only the Amnos is the Body of Christ; in fact, in the context of the conversation, he suggested that Fr. Alkiviadis would be greatly troubled hearing that a teleturgics professor at the school was teaching that all particles are the Body of Christ.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

If it's not too much trouble, can someone explain what you are talking about? Or perhaps someone can provide a link that explains what Amnos and Proskomide are? Thanks.

The discussion revolves around the bread that is prepared for consecration in the Divine Liturgy. When a loaf is presented in an EO Church, it is created with a seal (usually imprinted in the bread before baking, but sometimes just a flour-seal) which has 3 important parts: first, a square imprinted in the center which says, around a cross, IC XC NI KA (one set of letters in each quadrant formed by the Cross inside the square), which means "Jesus Christ Conquers." This portion is referred to as the "Lamb" or "Amnos," and in the prayers is identified as Christ. To the left (from the observer's position) on the loaf is a triangle which represents the All-holy Virgin Mary. To the right, nine smaller triangles arranged in three rows, representing 8 groupings of Saints + the Saint who wrote the Liturgy being celebrated. These are placed on the paten with prayers or commemorations appropriate to the respective symbolism involved.

From the remaining part of the loaf, small particles of bread are taken out as names of the living and deceased are commemorated, including the name of the bishop, the Hierarch who ordained the priest celebrating (if different than the bishop of the diocese), and others important to members of the community, the clergy, and those who made the bread-offering.

The debate here centers on whether or not the other particles other than the Amnos-Lamb are indeed the Body of Christ or not.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Serbski, I hate to burst your bubble, but I spoke with my proistamenos, who took Liturgics, Sacramental Theology, and Teleturgics from Calivas, and Calivas told them that only the Amnos is the Body of Christ; in fact, in the context of the conversation, he suggested that Fr. Alkiviadis would be greatly troubled hearing that a teleturgics professor at the school was teaching that all particles are the Body of Christ.

Interesting. What about the argument that the body of christ is not divided? If it all came from the same prosphoron, etc. ?? That is the basic argument of our professor.

Also, Cleveland, what do you say in response to what I have QUOTED Fr. Calivas, from his own text book. That's great that your proistamenos had a personal experience, but this is a publication by the selfsame person...so it should be tackled for what it's worth.

Here are some other ideas:

The very idea that the other elements (other than the amnos) are just sitting there is difficult to believe in light of the "patristic" thought on the idea of symbol. It is not just "symbolic" as we normally believe, but rather it is the VERY representation of what we say that it is. This might be an addition to the discussion.

Here is a short comment on that, with a good liturgical point connected to our discussion:

Quote

The Bread and Wine are a good example. If you read the liturgical texts, especially liturgy of St. Basil, because he uses the word “anti-type” and the word “symbol” which both mean the connection or true manifestation and participation in the event and the actual blood and wine.

In terms of a counter argument, I came across this in my notes, in regards to the Fermentum. The fermentum was a piece of the AMNOS which was given to the presbyter, which "enacted" or "completed" the eucharist. So maybe there is an argument here for Cleveland...

Quote

One interesting phenomenon is “fermentum” which is when you have a city and the original church, like in Rome, breaking into different parishes in order to show the one of the local community, which is connected to the bishop. The fermentum developed out of this. It was the local church of the bishop, where the bishop would consecrate the gifts and give a piece of the gifts called the fermentum, to the new order of clergy called the Acolytes. The original job of the Acolyte was to be runners, who would take a piece of the fermentum and they would run to the surrounding parishes and area and in those parishes the presbyters would be consecrating his own Eucharist but to illustrate that there was a tangible connection to the one bishop in that region, a piece of the fermentum would be mixed in with the presbyter’s Eucharist. The Acolytes would have come into the church at the time of the Great Entrance, so this is why you sometimes see people with great reverence when the entrance happens, even though they are not consecrated, but it could be a remnant or memory of the Frementum.

We actually do something like this today. We take the part of the consecrated lamb which is marked “IC” and put it into the chalice, at the time of consecration and no one receives from it. Then the priest receives from the part marked “XC” and then the rest is put into the chalice. This is a remnant from the Fermentum. The piece from the bishop would come and go in the chalice FIRST, and then the rest of the portions would be put into the chalice.

Interesting. What about the argument that the body of christ is not divided? If it all came from the same prosphoron, etc. ?? That is the basic argument of our professor.

I think it's a non sequitur in this conversation; the rest of the prosphoron isn't included in the communion - if we're arguing for continuity, then the whole loaf, which has been prepared and blessed in the Proskomedia, is ready to be Amnos tou Theou, yet the rest is used as an antidoron instead. I'd actually expect more from him than just that; common source does not denote common use, common purpose, or common destiny; reading enough St. Paul can demonstrate that.

Also, Cleveland, what do you say in response to what I have QUOTED Fr. Calivas, from his own text book. That's great that your proistamenos had a personal experience, but this is a publication by the selfsame person...so it should be tackled for what it's worth.

OK, fine. I don't think, however, that you'll get a conclusive answer about Fr. Calivas' position unless you ask him to write you an email answer to this issue. I'm sure he'd be glad to do it, especially for a senior at HC who is going into the Priestly service.

To answer this question in short...YES it would become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Yikes. Then what's the point of the parallel to the Mystical Supper; yes, we can use whatever we need to to create Communion (e.g. grape juice in Alaska) - but when we have the alternatives, then we use what was used in the first instance: bread and wine. It's a big reason for the long debate on the use of leaven - we believe that leavened bread was actually used. If anything could be used regardless of actual parallel or availability of the original gifts, then why all the fuss?

Why is it that we cover the cup and diskos? why is it that we shake the aer for the Creed? Why is it that some chalices come with a metal cover, which is placed over the chalice all the way until communion? so that this kind of thing doesn't happen, BECAUSE by virtue of it being the body and blood, everything within the chalice is body and blood.

No - it's because we want to keep the gifts undefiled, unmixed with flies and the like; if any bug that fell into the chalice became a part of Christ's Body, then there would be no need to cover the chalice! We believe that anything that is part of God's Body cannot harm us, and the like - despite hundreds of people receiving communion per month from the same spoon, most of our clergy don't get sick! Things falling into communion, if they automatically became the Body of Christ, would fall into that category; however, we go to great lengths to keep things out, simply because we want to maintain the integrity of the bloodless sacrifice.

...the epiclesis, the invocation to the Father to send down his Holy Spirit upon the liturgical assembly and upon the gifts that have been set forth, that they may be changed to be the Body and Blood of Christ. (pg. 210)

Notice here he says upon the liturgical ASSEMBLY and the GIFTS that have been set forth. Also keep in mind that at the petition of the epiklisis we say "changing them by your Holy Spirit" replied by "amen, amen amen"...notice that we are using the plural here, not the singular. So if the consecration was only the amnos, wouldn't it be singular?

Um, there is Amnos and Wine - "them." Arguments on grammar work sometimes, but not all times.

And the praise leads to the petition. And the petition leads to the epiclesis, which in turn, through the consecration of the gifts, begins the fulfillment of the Divine Liturgy, the essence of what lies in communion, in our partaking of Christ and our union with each other. (pg. 210)

Notice again, how he says here the "consecration of the gifts" ...being plural...

At every Eucharist through the bread and wine - the distinctly unique human foods, and therefore symbols of human life - we offer humbly to GOd our life in exchange for his, which he freely gives to us through the consecrated Eucharistic elements, which are no longer bread and wine, nor symbols or icons, but the very Body and Blood of the risen Christ, having been sanctified and transformed by the power of the Father through the Holy Spirit. (pg. 211)

So here we see that the "bread" which technically was the WHOLE prosphoron, broken up into its various elements, is consecrated ENTIRELY to be the Body and Blood of Christ, NO LONGER BEING JUST BREAD, but fully Christ.

The Amnos starts as bread - the use of the term bread doesn't necessitate total inclusion. One part is bread (the Amnos), so the use of the term doesn't necessarily designate the whole.

In the Eucharist, Christ acts to make us members of his own body that we may "grow up in every way into him" (Ephes. 4:15). The mystery of our incorporation into the body of Christ begins with baptism, through our immersion into the life-giving font. (pg. 212)

I added this to make the distinction of HOW we become the body of christ, as a counter-argument against Cleveland's whole point of putting a piece of "cheek" on the patten.

Again, this line of argumentation fails to recognize diversification of roles within the Body; just as not all can be Bishops, Priests, Nuns, or Mothers, not all bread is used in Church, and not all Church bread becomes the Body of Christ.

In the Eucharist, Christ is forever present and immediate to his people; and his saving work remains constant and operative for every generation in every place, until he comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead.

So yah...if something drops in the Eucharist, it is eucharist. Otherwise, this statement above becomes no longer true.

The very idea that the other elements (other than the amnos) are just sitting there is difficult to believe in light of the "patristic" thought on the idea of symbol. It is not just "symbolic" as we normally believe, but rather it is the VERY representation of what we say that it is. This might be an addition to the discussion.

Here is a short comment on that, with a good liturgical point connected to our discussion:

Quote

The Bread and Wine are a good example. If you read the liturgical texts, especially liturgy of St. Basil, because he uses the word “anti-type” and the word “symbol” which both mean the connection or true manifestation and participation in the event and the actual blood and wine.

Um, the argument that the other particles are active "symbol" actually bolsters my position, which is that those pieces which are called forth as symbols of Mary, the Saints, and the Living and Departed, are not "the Body of Christ, the Amnos" even though they are part of the Body of Christ. Their symbolism is inconsistent with use as the Amnos Tou Theou.

In terms of a counter argument, I came across this in my notes, in regards to the Fermentum. The fermentum was a piece of the AMNOS which was given to the presbyter, which "enacted" or "completed" the eucharist. So maybe there is an argument here for Cleveland...

Quote

One interesting phenomenon is “fermentum” which is when you have a city and the original church, like in Rome, breaking into different parishes in order to show the one of the local community, which is connected to the bishop. The fermentum developed out of this. It was the local church of the bishop, where the bishop would consecrate the gifts and give a piece of the gifts called the fermentum, to the new order of clergy called the Acolytes. The original job of the Acolyte was to be runners, who would take a piece of the fermentum and they would run to the surrounding parishes and area and in those parishes the presbyters would be consecrating his own Eucharist but to illustrate that there was a tangible connection to the one bishop in that region, a piece of the fermentum would be mixed in with the presbyter’s Eucharist. The Acolytes would have come into the church at the time of the Great Entrance, so this is why you sometimes see people with great reverence when the entrance happens, even though they are not consecrated, but it could be a remnant or memory of the Frementum.

We actually do something like this today. We take the part of the consecrated lamb which is marked “IC” and put it into the chalice, at the time of consecration and no one receives from it. Then the priest receives from the part marked “XC” and then the rest is put into the chalice. This is a remnant from the Fermentum. The piece from the bishop would come and go in the chalice FIRST, and then the rest of the portions would be put into the chalice.

I don't know...i gota do some more research.

Eh, I don't know how much it adds to my position, but it may be useful for others reading this thread.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

I think it's a non sequitur in this conversation; the rest of the prosphoron isn't included in the communion - if we're arguing for continuity, then the whole loaf, which has been prepared and blessed in the Proskomedia, is ready to be Amnos tou Theou, yet the rest is used as an antidoron instead. I'd actually expect more from him than just that; common source does not denote common use, common purpose, or common destiny; reading enough St. Paul can demonstrate that.

What about the idea of the undivided christ in general? Like I said before in our "live" conversation, if the other elements are not Christ, then why do we put them in the chalice at all? If the question is one of intent...? In regards to your St. Paul comment...i'm not gona touch that with a 10 foot pole...you know where I stand on that particular professor...

Quote

OK, fine. I don't think, however, that you'll get a conclusive answer about Fr. Calivas' position unless you ask him to write you an email answer to this issue. I'm sure he'd be glad to do it, especially for a senior at HC who is going into the Priestly service.

I will make sure to give him a call tomorrow! thanks for the advice. only I would have overlooked that step...

Quote

Yikes. Then what's the point of the parallel to the Mystical Supper; yes, we can use whatever we need to to create Communion (e.g. grape juice in Alaska) - but when we have the alternatives, then we use what was used in the first instance: bread and wine. It's a big reason for the long debate on the use of leaven - we believe that leavened bread was actually used. If anything could be used regardless of actual parallel or availability of the original gifts, then why all the fuss?

So the mystical supper is our ultimate example right? They at the entire bread right, and they were in communion b/c they were all present as a communion of Christians, saints, etc. So...was there any portion of the bread that was not christ? well...they had the whole christ with them right? So after Christ's ascension, when they did it in remembrance of Him, what happened? They had meals together and THAT was their communion, along with the remembrance of the last supper. So really, where is the communion? with the people or the bread?

Quote

No - it's because we want to keep the gifts undefiled, unmixed with flies and the like; if any bug that fell into the chalice became a part of Christ's Body, then there would be no need to cover the chalice! We believe that anything that is part of God's Body cannot harm us, and the like - despite hundreds of people receiving communion per month from the same spoon, most of our clergy don't get sick! Things falling into communion, if they automatically became the Body of Christ, would fall into that category; however, we go to great lengths to keep things out, simply because we want to maintain the integrity of the bloodless sacrifice.

I have a counter thought. When we partake of the body of Christ, we partake fully of him, and therefore are re-experiencing our baptism right? So if WE become Christ, what happens to a bug or a doughnut that falls into the chalice? Let me know what you think...

Quote

Um, there is Amnos and Wine - "them." Arguments on grammar work sometimes, but not all times.

Right...them. That means the ENTIRE gifts. There is no separation of the Amnos from the other elements.

Quote

I'm going to have to ask you how you came to that conclusion

My conclusion was drawn from the explanation I just gave above, as well as from the idea that if: "In the Eucharist, Christ acts to make us members of his own body" (Calivas) when something is dropped in the chalice and is NOT eucharist, then doesn't that idea negate what Calivas just stated?

and... "In the Eucharist, Christ is forever present and immediate to his people" so what if a doughnut falls in the eucharist? What does it become if in the eucharist christ is present and immediate, OTHER than Christ Himself?

What about the idea of the undivided Christ in general? Like I said before in our "live" conversation, if the other elements are not Christ, then why do we put them in the chalice at all? If the question is one of intent...?

That's why I quoted the prayer: we commemorate these people whom we hope are (or will be) standing around the throne of Christ in heaven, and pray that through the intercessions of some (Theotokos and the Saints) all the rest will be saved, in and through Communion with the Lord. That doesn't make them, however, part of the Bread of Life and the Body of Christ as present in the Eucharist.

So the mystical supper is our ultimate example right? They at the entire bread right, and they were in communion b/c they were all present as a communion of Christians, saints, etc. So...was there any portion of the bread that was not christ? well...they had the whole christ with them right? So after Christ's ascension, when they did it in remembrance of Him, what happened? They had meals together and THAT was their communion, along with the remembrance of the last supper. So really, where is the communion? with the people or the bread?

Hey, Christ blessed the whole loaf; we cut out a part of the loaf and call it, in rubrics and prayers, the Body of Christ, the Lamb of God, and the Bread of Life. We've slightly modified our practice, because we've added levels of commemoration, remembrance, and formality to the service. Even in the rubrics that call for the placing of the particles into the Chalice before Communion, only the Amnos is referred to as the Holy Body, which means even in this alternate direction, the distinction is still made.

I have a counter thought. When we partake of the body of Christ, we partake fully of him, and therefore are re-experiencing our baptism right? So if WE become Christ, what happens to a bug or a doughnut that falls into the chalice? Let me know what you think...

Yes, we become Christ - but not to the point where, moments or minutes or hours after receiving, someone could rip off our flesh and partake of it and "receive the Body of Christ, taste the fountain of immortality." We don't become Communion, because we aren't meant to be "Take, Eat" Communion - our purpose is different; our Communion is to be one of Love, teaching, forgiving, et al. A doughnut or a bug that falls into the Chalice doesn't become "Take, Eat" Communion, but rather a bug or doughnut soaked in the Blood of our Lord and Savior.

Right...them. That means the ENTIRE gifts. There is no separation of the Amnos from the other elements.

There's no explicit or implicit inclusion of the other elements in the statement; and, in order to counter the other textual things found, said inclusion would surely need to be explicit in any text or set of directions. There's no necessity for the elements to be included in these or any other statements, just as there is no necessity to think that we are part of the "Take, Eat" Communion just because Christ is not Divided.

My conclusion was drawn from the explanation I just gave above, as well as from the idea that if: "In the Eucharist, Christ acts to make us members of his own body" (Calivas) when something is dropped in the chalice and is NOT eucharist, then doesn't that idea negate what Calivas just stated?

and... "In the Eucharist, Christ is forever present and immediate to his people" so what if a doughnut falls in the eucharist? What does it become if in the eucharist christ is present and immediate, OTHER than Christ Himself?

I think you need to see the different layers and roles of the parts of the body. We are a part of the Body, and the Amnos is a part of the Body, and the Blood in the Holy Cup is a part of the Body, and the particles are a part of the Body. We are the Arms and Legs, moving, interacting, and spreading God's Love. The Blood is our Blood, coming from the heart to nourish us and strengthen us. The Amnos is the skin, holding us together, binding the parts. The particles are our thoughts, our memories, our examples - they are the people we remember for inspiration; they are the mentors we call to for intercession; they gave the examples we need for Right Action; they are the ones We Love, and pray that they, fed by the Same Blood, and held into the Body by the Same Skin, be accounted worthy to be kept in the Eternal Memory of the Lord, to be forever a part of the Body, nourished by Him, held together with us.

It's an imperfect model, but I think it (does the best job it can at this late hour) illustrates part of my position on the diversity of roles and purposes within the Body.

« Last Edit: January 12, 2009, 12:19:44 AM by cleveland »

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

That's why I quoted the prayer: we commemorate these people whom we hope are (or will be) standing around the throne of Christ in heaven, and pray that through the intercessions of some (Theotokos and the Saints) all the rest will be saved, in and through Communion with the Lord. That doesn't make them, however, part of the Bread of Life and the Body of Christ as present in the Eucharist.

Ok...then why would we put those elements in the chalice after communing the people, and the priest consumes all of the "gifts"...including these things which you say are not necessarily supposed to be present in the Eucharist itself?

Quote

Hey, Christ blessed the whole loaf; we cut out a part of the loaf and call it, in rubrics and prayers, the Body of Christ, the Lamb of God, and the Bread of Life. We've slightly modified our practice, because we've added levels of commemoration, remembrance, and formality to the service. Even in the rubrics that call for the placing of the particles into the Chalice before Communion, only the Amnos is referred to as the Holy Body, which means even in this alternate direction, the distinction is still made.

To me those metaphors present a WHOLENESS, not a partialness. The Bread of Life in John was consumed wholly, not partially. If you just have one little piece of communion, it is the whole Christ...right? So, if the whole christ is in the chalice, then when we put the other elements in the chalice, do they not also become the whole christ? Sorry...i'm just not getting it.

Quote

Yes, we become Christ - but not to the point where, moments or minutes or hours after receiving, someone could rip off our flesh and partake of it and "receive the Body of Christ, taste the fountain of immortality." We don't become Communion, because we aren't meant to be "Take, Eat" Communion - our purpose is different; our Communion is to be one of Love, teaching, forgiving, et al. A doughnut or a bug that falls into the Chalice doesn't become "Take, Eat" Communion, but rather a bug or doughnut soaked in the Blood of our Lord and Savior.

You sort of given an answer here to my question above. However, you talk about ripping the flesh and how we don't become communion...BUT, when we play sports or etc. after communion, and we start bleeding, why is it that we burn the band-aid and the paper towel w/ blood, after communion? And, if the body and blood of Christ are NOT actually in us, in a real sense, then in WHAT sense are they in us? I understand that we have to BECOME communion, but we also did REALLY take ACTUAL communion...so...which one is it?

Quote

I think you need to see the different layers and roles of the parts of the body. We are a part of the Body, and the Amnos is a part of the Body, and the Blood in the Holy Cup is a part of the Body, and the particles are a part of the Body. We are the Arms and Legs, moving, interacting, and spreading God's Love. The Blood is our Blood, coming from the heart to nourish us and strengthen us. The Amnos is the skin, holding us together, binding the parts. The particles are our thoughts, our memories, our examples - they are the people we remember for inspiration; they are the mentors we call to for intercession; they gave the examples we need for Right Action; they are the ones We Love, and pray that they, fed by the Same Blood, and held into the Body by the Same Skin, be accounted worthy to be kept in the Eternal Memory of the Lord, to be forever a part of the Body, nourished by Him, held together with us.

Ok, so if ALL OF IT, TOGETHER is the Body of Christ, then what is happening at the consecration itself?

Also, reading through Calivas' book, I came across the fact that when the Amnos is lifted up at "ta agia tis agois", that is a much later liturgical action....for some reason I can't find the reference...what do you think about it in general though?

Also, reading through Calivas' book, I came across the fact that when the Amnos is lifted up at "ta agia tis agois", that is a much later liturgical action....for some reason I can't find the reference...what do you think about it in general though?

The prayer/exclamation is probably later (he'll argue it's part of the monastic piety creeped into the service), but the lifting and fraction is most likely not, or at least not later than the Proskomedia.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Also, reading through Calivas' book, I came across the fact that when the Amnos is lifted up at "ta agia tis agois", that is a much later liturgical action....for some reason I can't find the reference...what do you think about it in general though?

The prayer/exclamation is probably later (he'll argue it's part of the monastic piety creeped into the service), but the lifting and fraction is most likely not, or at least not later than the Proskomedia.

He said it's much later than everything. In fact, he made the point that it is a RECENT invention, like the last century. I gota find that quote....

Also, reading through Calivas' book, I came across the fact that when the Amnos is lifted up at "ta agia tis agois", that is a much later liturgical action....for some reason I can't find the reference...what do you think about it in general though?

The prayer/exclamation is probably later (he'll argue it's part of the monastic piety creeped into the service), but the lifting and fraction is most likely not, or at least not later than the Proskomedia.

He said it's much later than everything. In fact, he made the point that it is a RECENT invention, like the last century. I gota find that quote....

Woah, there. I've got my "L'Eucologio Barberini gr. 336" book in front of me, and on page 21 in the middle of the section "LITURGIA DI BASILIO" it has "Ta agia" in there. Jasper & Coming, in "Prayers of the Eucharist," (2nd Ed 1980, pp. 123 & 134) also identify "Ta Agia" as being a part of the ancient text of Barberini for both St. John's and St. Basil's Liturgies.

(Aside)I'd love to have one of our Italian speakers translate the Introduction to the Barberini book for me; I'd be willing to scan it and email it to them. I love having the text in Greek, but not knowing what the textual notes are at the beginning is mental torture.

« Last Edit: January 12, 2009, 02:09:19 PM by cleveland »

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Barberini is identified as a 9th century manuscript of an Euchologion (Priest's prayer book) housed at the Vatican, for those who don't know what I'm referencing in the previous post.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Also, reading through Calivas' book, I came across the fact that when the Amnos is lifted up at "ta agia tis agois", that is a much later liturgical action....for some reason I can't find the reference...what do you think about it in general though?

The prayer/exclamation is probably later (he'll argue it's part of the monastic piety creeped into the service), but the lifting and fraction is most likely not, or at least not later than the Proskomedia.

He said it's much later than everything. In fact, he made the point that it is a RECENT invention, like the last century. I gota find that quote....

Woah, there. I've got my "L'Eucologio Barberini gr. 336" book in front of me, and on page 21 in the middle of the section "LITURGIA DI BASILIO" it has "Ta agia" in there.

(Aside)I'd love to have one of our Italian speakers translate the Introduction to this book for me; I'd be willing to scan it and email it to them. I love having the text in Greek, but not knowing what the textual notes are at the beginning is mental torture.

that's exactly what Calivas said, that the words were originally just "ta agia" and he quoted Barbarini Codex as well. The problem comes with the LITURGICAL ACTION, as he had put it. He said that the action of lifting up the amnos came much later.

It is quoted in both the Barberini text in front of me, and the Jasper & Cuming, as "Ta Agia tois Agiois" - I was using "Ta Agia" as an abbreviation out of laziness. The lifting is called for in both cases. In fact, the prayer before "Ta Agia tois Agiois" is called in the Barberini text "Prayer of the lifting of the bread." I don't see how one can get around that.

« Last Edit: January 12, 2009, 02:15:55 PM by cleveland »

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Ok...then why would we put those elements in the chalice after communing the people, and the priest consumes all of the "gifts"...including these things which you say are not necessarily supposed to be present in the Eucharist itself?

Didn't you read the prayer? We put the particles in as a symbolic act, asking that the Communion (Body & Blood already present in the Chalice) wash away the sins of the Living and Deceased, especially through the prayers of the Saints who are also represented. We all become one in the Communion, even if we don't become Communion per se.

To me those metaphors present a WHOLENESS, not a partialness. The Bread of Life in John was consumed wholly, not partially. If you just have one little piece of communion, it is the whole Christ...right? So, if the whole christ is in the chalice, then when we put the other elements in the chalice, do they not also become the whole christ? Sorry...i'm just not getting it.

Even if they become Christ, just as we become parts of His Body, it doesn't mean that they become the parts intended for the reception of the faithful.

You sort of given an answer here to my question above. However, you talk about ripping the flesh and how we don't become communion...BUT, when we play sports or etc. after communion, and we start bleeding, why is it that we burn the band-aid and the paper towel w/ blood, after communion? And, if the body and blood of Christ are NOT actually in us, in a real sense, then in WHAT sense are they in us? I understand that we have to BECOME communion, but we also did REALLY take ACTUAL communion...so...which one is it?

How far do you want to take the question, my friend, because unfortunately you're trying to overdefine some sort of magical point or relationship. I actually have a problem with the whole "burn the band-aid" thing, because at that point we're trying to define a "wearing off" point for Communion, a "range of transformation," etc. Like counting Angels on a pinhead.

Ok, so if ALL OF IT, TOGETHER is the Body of Christ, then what is happening at the consecration itself?

A piece of bread and cup of Water-Wine become a part of that body, for the express purpose of keeping the rest of us within the Body and well-nourished.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Didn't you read the prayer? We put the particles in as a symbolic act, asking that the Communion (Body & Blood already present in the Chalice) wash away the sins of the Living and Deceased, especially through the prayers of the Saints who are also represented. We all become one in the Communion, even if we don't become Communion per se.

LOL! Yah I did as a matter of fact. Firstly, I didn't read it as a symbolic act. Maybe you can point out exactly where YOU did. Also, if we don't become communion, then what happens once the body and blood of christ is within us? We are washed away of our sins right, but how? just by partaking? Or is it because we are then engrafted into the body of Christ, through communion? How exactly does it work?

To me those metaphors present a WHOLENESS, not a partialness. The Bread of Life in John was consumed wholly, not partially. If you just have one little piece of communion, it is the whole Christ...right? So, if the whole christ is in the chalice, then when we put the other elements in the chalice, do they not also become the whole christ? Sorry...i'm just not getting it.

Even if they become Christ, just as we become parts of His Body, it doesn't mean that they become the parts intended for the reception of the faithful.[/quote]

How does that work out? They become christ, but they are not intended for the reception of the faithful? Then what's to say the other parts are intended for the faithful? Your personal decision? Just trying to figure it out...

Quote

How far do you want to take the question, my friend, because unfortunately you're trying to overdefine some sort of magical point or relationship. I actually have a problem with the whole "burn the band-aid" thing, because at that point we're trying to define a "wearing off" point for Communion, a "range of transformation," etc. Like counting Angels on a pinhead.

I'm with you. I was never a huge fan of the whole thing. But what kind of relationship IS it, if it's not what I laid it out to be?

I thought that the piece of bread and the cup of wine-water were the FULLNESS of Christ, made manifest for us and our salvation? Not a part. Does that make sense?

Well, first of all, the piece of bread and the cup aren't the Fullness of Christ, the Body and Blood of Christ are; and yes, while they are the Fullness of Christ, so are you, so is the Church, when the Eucharist is involved. However, we were working with the "Body of Christ" metaphor I had laid out - yes, it's imperfect, but it was as close as I could come at that late hour to a coherent example. Heck, Christ is the Head - but isn't He also the Body? So why call Him the Head? Roles, purposes, intents - we work with revelation and manifestation of Christ in different aspects.

You've got other questions in your post above that will take more time to answer. I'll see what I can do.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

I thought that the piece of bread and the cup of wine-water were the FULLNESS of Christ, made manifest for us and our salvation? Not a part. Does that make sense?

Well, first of all, the piece of bread and the cup aren't the Fullness of Christ, the Body and Blood of Christ are; and yes, while they are the Fullness of Christ, so are you, so is the Church, when the Eucharist is involved. However, we were working with the "Body of Christ" metaphor I had laid out - yes, it's imperfect, but it was as close as I could come at that late hour to a coherent example. Heck, Christ is the Head - but isn't He also the Body? So why call Him the Head? Roles, purposes, intents - we work with revelation and manifestation of Christ in different aspects.

You've got other questions in your post above that will take more time to answer. I'll see what I can do.

Thank you for taking the time you have put in so far.

My real problem, as I have just read what you said above, is just making sense of all of this. I just spent 3 years listening to this professor, who is basically my only source of information. So right now i'm trying to educate myself, through you guys and the sources we have discussed and etc. So, it's gona be a process no matter which way you slice it...

- I spoke with my dad, who said the following: Professor Fontoulis says that only the Amnos is the Body of Christ and only the Amnos should be given to the people; also, he remembers Metropolitan MAXIMOS saying the same thing while he was a priest-professor at Holy Cross.

- Then, I spoke with His Eminence (having called him to answer the question in the "Jesus Christ the God-Man" thread), who said that only the Amnos is consecrated, while the other particles are sanctified.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

- I spoke with my dad, who said the following: Professor Fontoulis says that only the Amnos is the Body of Christ and only the Amnos should be given to the people; also, he remembers Metropolitan MAXIMOS saying the same thing while he was a priest-professor at Holy Cross.

- Then, I spoke with His Eminence (having called him to answer the question in the "Jesus Christ the God-Man" thread), who said that only the Amnos is consecrated, while the other particles are sanctified.

Interesting distinction on the second point, about the other elements being sanctified.

If you don't mind, could you ask your dad (and His Eminence if you could ) about where we could find sources that discuss this? Or at the very least, WHY he thinks that only the Amnos is the Body of Christ?

- I spoke with my dad, who said the following: Professor Fontoulis says that only the Amnos is the Body of Christ and only the Amnos should be given to the people; also, he remembers Metropolitan MAXIMOS saying the same thing while he was a priest-professor at Holy Cross.

- Then, I spoke with His Eminence (having called him to answer the question in the "Jesus Christ the God-Man" thread), who said that only the Amnos is consecrated, while the other particles are sanctified.

I would also ask your dad (and the Met.) about some of the other things we discussed like:- If the other elements are just sanctified, then why put them in the chalice at all, if you're not going to give it as communion to the people?- Why pick up the crumbs from the antimension? Because you don't know what it is? Is it really that simplistic?

Perhaps you could come up with a better list of questions, but these are immediate on my mind.

Like I just said above...it's a question of intent. I responded by saying that the INTENT is for the whole body of Christ to be there. He said, yes, they are there on the paten, but communion is with Christ....something along those lines.

You've hit the nail on the head there. Communion is with Christ - not simply Christ our saviour but with his whole body. All Members of that communion (as in church communion, not the species) make up the body of Christ and in eating and drink of His Body and Blood we come not just into communion with the Divine but also into communion with all those who share the one bread and one cup. All Christians past, present and future and present at the Communion. I would say that all of the particles are consecrated and that they are used to represent all those that we come into communion with by receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord.

Here are some thoughts from Athony Coniaris' "These are the Sacraments", for your thoughts:

Quote

The Eucharist is the nuptial encounter of the soul with her Lord. It is a marriage union between Christ and the soul. In the words of Cyril of Jerusalem "Christ has given to the children of the bridal chamber the enjoyment of His body and His blood." Another Church Father, Theodoret, writes, "In eating the elements of the Bridegroom and drinking His blood, we accomplish a marriage union." The Eucharist then, becomes the marriage relationship through which the Bridegroom, Christ, espouses the Church as His Bride, thus transforming a human community into the Church of God.

St. Ambrose says that when the Body of Christ is placed on the lips of the believer, it is truly a kiss given by Christ to the soul, the expression of teh union of love between the believer and his Lord.

The Eucharist is the Eschaton, the Omega, breaking into history...It is participating in the new life of Christ by partaking of the Precious Body and Blood of our Lord.

Quote

Let me quote from a tract on "Holy Communion""The Bible and the Saints say that Holy COmmunion is God's greatest gift to man, that it is the Living Presence of God with His people in Christ and the Holy Spirit, that it is the Power of Christ's life, death, resurrection, ascension and glorification given to man, that it is the most perfect sacrifice of peace and thanksgiving and praise possible for man to offer God, that it is, finally, the most powerful and joyful celebration of Paradise this side of the grave!" (quote is from "Holy Communion", Orthodox Tracts, Number 8, Dept. of Religious Education, OCA)

Quote

Fr. John Kronstadt writes about the Eucharist: "In receiving the Holy Sacrament be as undoubtedly sure that you communicate the Body and Blood of Christ, as you are sure that every moment you breathe air. Say to yourself 'As surely as I constantly breathe air, so surely do I now receive into myself, together with the air, my Lord Jesus Christ Himself, my breathing, my life, my joy, my salvation...He has opened unto us, in His Holy Mysteries, in His Blood, the source of living water, flowing into eternal life and gives Himself to us as food and drinkin order "that we may live by Him"

Quote

The Eucharist is a divine blood transfusion. God transfuses His own precious, sacred, royal and life-giving blood into our own blood stream to give us new life, new strength and royal dignity. The Old Testament speaks of blood as life (Gen. 2:7; Lev. 17:11, 14). In the New Testament the Eucharist becomes the way by which we receive the very life of God through the Precious Blood of His Son.

Quote

The God who is present everywhere is to be found somewhere in specific. "This ismy body...This is my blood." When Jesus spoke these words He meant exactly what He said. The bread and wine that are received as Communion are literally His Body and Blood. They are not merely symbols. For Jesus Himself said, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55). St. John Chrysostom writes, "What is in the chalice is the same as that which flowed from Christ's side..."

Interesting distinction on the second point, about the other elements being sanctified.

If you don't mind, could you ask your dad (and His Eminence if you could ) about where we could find sources that discuss this? Or at the very least, WHY he thinks that only the Amnos is the Body of Christ?

Well, Dad had told me that he was going to look up the Fontoulis reference for me; when I spoke to him today he was at home, but all his books are at the office.

You've hit the nail on the head there. Communion is with Christ - not simply Christ our saviour but with his whole body. All Members of that communion (as in church communion, not the species) make up the body of Christ and in eating and drink of His Body and Blood we come not just into communion with the Divine but also into communion with all those who share the one bread and one cup. All Christians past, present and future and present at the Communion. I would say that all of the particles are consecrated and that they are used to represent all those that we come into communion with by receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord.

I'm sure I've mentioned this to Serbski, but just because we are one, and those commemorated are one, in the Eucharist doesn't mean we become part of the Eucharist to be taken and eaten. Considering the relative mountain of above references, the burden lies with those who posit that the other particles become the Body of Christ to back their position up.

I would also ask your dad (and the Met.) about some of the other things we discussed like:- If the other elements are just sanctified, then why put them in the chalice at all, if you're not going to give it as communion to the people?

My thoughts will have to suffice for the time being:The act of commemorating these names, placing these particles on the Diskos, sanctifying them by their presence with the Lamb of God, immersion in the Body and Blood of Christ to wash away their sins and manifest their unity with the Church - this act is sufficient in and of itself, without the consumption of the people. Placing the particles of the Theotokos and the Saints in the Chalice afterward is representational of their true state now: in Eternal Communion with our Lord and God and Savior. Placing the particles of those living and deceased into the Chalice is an act of Love, of Hope, of reconciliation, of forgiveness, of union. As the prayer says, we ask that their sins be remitted (a power which Communion has, as we say when people receive, "for the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting"); in a way, it is as if they are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ through this immersion - we ask that it have that kind of spiritual effect/benefit on/for them (I'm not saying that this is indeed what's happening - just pointing to the symbolism).

The priest consumes them as an act of reverence and proper disposal, just as he receives all the Body and Blood of Christ that is not distributed; we focus on the "Take, Eat" in the purpose of the Eucharist, which would imply that we need to make an exact amount - all that is excess must then be properly disposed of, and in this case, that is the job of the Priest.

- Why pick up the crumbs from the antimension? Because you don't know what it is? Is it really that simplistic?

Why do we pick up the crumbs from the antidoron off the carpet? Because everything, and especially everything purified and sanctified by God (Holy Water, Communion, Antidoron, Unction, etc.) should be either consumed (eaten, absorbed, etc.) or disposed of in a proper fashion (burial, burning). Oh, and simple /= simplistic in all cases - that's another mistake I think you're making, that you assume that just because the answers to these questions are simply given or simply understood means they are simplistic/inadequate/wrong.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

I'm finding this thread really interesting.I have a question: at the Epiclesis, when the Priest says "And make this bread....", which bread is he indicating? Is he indicating the Amnos only or is he indicating everything on the Diskos?

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

I'm finding this thread really interesting.I have a question: at the Epiclesis, when the Priest says "And make this bread....", which bread is he indicating? Is he indicating the Amnos only or is he indicating everything on the Diskos?

It seems that all prayers about "the bread" is focused on the Amnos. On the one hand, the other particles are a later addition to the rite, on the other hand the Amnos is clearly distinguished in some parts of the ritual (the Raising & Fracture, during the preparation/Proskomedia).

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

I'm finding this thread really interesting.I have a question: at the Epiclesis, when the Priest says "And make this bread....", which bread is he indicating? Is he indicating the Amnos only or is he indicating everything on the Diskos?

Most priests I know, when this part comes up, they make the sign of the ICXC with their hands OVER the AMNOS itself, not the whole diskos (in general). So, even in their blessing, they are being specific.

Interesting distinction on the second point, about the other elements being sanctified.

If you don't mind, could you ask your dad (and His Eminence if you could ) about where we could find sources that discuss this? Or at the very least, WHY he thinks that only the Amnos is the Body of Christ?

Well, Dad had told me that he was going to look up the Fontoulis reference for me; when I spoke to him today he was at home, but all his books are at the office.

I'm sure I've mentioned this to Serbski, but just because we are one, and those commemorated are one, in the Eucharist doesn't mean we become part of the Eucharist to be taken and eaten. Considering the relative mountain of above references, the burden lies with those who posit that the other particles become the Body of Christ to back their position up.

I'm sorry Cleveland...maybe I missed something, but i'm not sure what this "mountain of above references" is...All i've seen is some thoughts that you have written and a reference to the epiklesis prayer itself. If I missed something...maybe you can lay it out for me b/c i'm having a tough time putting it "into sync"...you know how I am about being linear...it's tough for me to keep going back and forth. Sorry to put this burden on you, but it would help me a lot. I could try to do it myself if you want...let me know...

I would also ask your dad (and the Met.) about some of the other things we discussed like:- If the other elements are just sanctified, then why put them in the chalice at all, if you're not going to give it as communion to the people?

My thoughts will have to suffice for the time being:The act of commemorating these names, placing these particles on the Diskos, sanctifying them by their presence with the Lamb of God, immersion in the Body and Blood of Christ to wash away their sins and manifest their unity with the Church - this act is sufficient in and of itself, without the consumption of the people. Placing the particles of the Theotokos and the Saints in the Chalice afterward is representational of their true state now: in Eternal Communion with our Lord and God and Savior. Placing the particles of those living and deceased into the Chalice is an act of Love, of Hope, of reconciliation, of forgiveness, of union. As the prayer says, we ask that their sins be remitted (a power which Communion has, as we say when people receive, "for the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting"); in a way, it is as if they are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ through this immersion - we ask that it have that kind of spiritual effect/benefit on/for them (I'm not saying that this is indeed what's happening - just pointing to the symbolism).

The priest consumes them as an act of reverence and proper disposal, just as he receives all the Body and Blood of Christ that is not distributed; we focus on the "Take, Eat" in the purpose of the Eucharist, which would imply that we need to make an exact amount - all that is excess must then be properly disposed of, and in this case, that is the job of the Priest.

I'm going to have to think about this...i'll have a response soon. I want to think about ever element and provide you a succinct thought as well.

- Why pick up the crumbs from the antimension? Because you don't know what it is? Is it really that simplistic?

Why do we pick up the crumbs from the antidoron off the carpet? Because everything, and especially everything purified and sanctified by God (Holy Water, Communion, Antidoron, Unction, etc.) should be either consumed (eaten, absorbed, etc.) or disposed of in a proper fashion (burial, burning). Oh, and simple /= simplistic in all cases - that's another mistake I think you're making, that you assume that just because the answers to these questions are simply given or simply understood means they are simplistic/inadequate/wrong.

I like your comment about everything being purified and sanctified. But isn't the HS present in all places and filling all things? Shouldn't we be bringing the ENTIRE creation to God, so that it may be saved? So then shouldn't we be burning everything we offer up to God. For example, if I offer a Tree up to God by drawing a cross on it, or etc. Should I burn it? What makes it sanctified? I think this has to be explained more.

Also, in terms of things being simplistic. It's not a matter of it being "good enough" but a matter of: I need more. I need more of an explanation. I need a system that I can work within. I have loved your points and your thoughts, but i'm having a tough time really getting them, and forming a system. That's my fault, and i'm really trying to put it all together, but it's tough for me, especially online.

When the professor said that the particles were all the body and blood b/c the body of christ is undivided, that was a system I could understand and run with. Your explanations are not quite as...satisfying (?)...sorry I couldn't think of a better word.

Here are some thoughts from Athony Coniaris' "These are the Sacraments", for your thoughts:

Quote

The Eucharist is a divine blood transfusion. God transfuses His own precious, sacred, royal and life-giving blood into our own blood stream to give us new life, new strength and royal dignity. The Old Testament speaks of blood as life (Gen. 2:7; Lev. 17:11, 14). In the New Testament the Eucharist becomes the way by which we receive the very life of God through the Precious Blood of His Son.

Did you get a chance to read this from my post above? Any thoughts to Coniaris' idea here about the blood?

The last effect of the Eucharist that we shall discuss is that it makes us the Body of Christ. It is the sacrament that makes each of us an extension of Christ and the presence of Christ on earth today. We not only receive the Body of Christ, but, having received, we go into the world to be the Body of Christ. This is the liturgy after the liturgy.

At the Epiclesis prayer both the people and the gifts of bread and wine are consecrated, each in its own way, to become the Body of Christ. Thus, we become the Body of Christ through Eucharist. It establishes the Church...etc. We go out into the world to be the eyes, the ears, the mouth, the hands, the feet of Christ.

After receiving the Eucharist, St. Symeon the New Theologian, looked at the members of his body and, thinking of the Blood of Jesus flowing through them, said: "We become members of Christ - and Christ becomes our members, Christ becomes my hand, Christ, my miserable feet; I wave my hand, and my hand is the whole Christ..." Thus, the Eucharist transforms me into a member of Christ, uniting me with all those who receive Him, to reveal the Church as a fellowship of love.

One thing that Coniaris DID say, which parallels something YOU said, is the whole idea of the fracture. As we know, the fracture is ONLY of the amnos, and Coniaris says that the Body is broken, so that would mean a connection with the Body and the Amnos.

Just another thought on the whole "everything becomes the body and blood once it's in the chalice" idea...

When a priest runs out of communion, what does he usually do? He adds more wine. The new wine, then becomes the body and blood.

I think part of the distinction that I was missing is the whole concept of the Bread still retaining its essence, yet also becoming the body of christ. So, when the doughnut falls in the chalice, it is STILL a doughnut, yet also the body of christ. just like the bread is bread, but still the body. So, same thing with a fly. it is still a fly, but also the body.

the problem now is, that what about all of this stuff I posted from Coniaris and his quotations of Symeon?

Just trying to balance it all out. Thanks again for all the great discussion!

It has never occurred to me that anything other than the Lamb itself is changed into the Body of Christ.

All the other unconsecrated particles on the diskos are not swept into the holy Chalice until AFTER communion. This takes place when the priest is praying: "Wash away, O Lord, the sins of all those commemorated here, by Thy precious Blood, through the prayers of Thy Saints."

Now I plan to go back and read the thread again to see what the clergy who have contributed think about this.

At least one of the priests I know who puts all the particles in before Communion will only give people pieces from the Amnos (he doesn't break the Amnos beforehand because he puts all the particles in - this way he knows which is which within the Holy Cup, and will only cut from the Amnos using the spoon for communion of the Faithful).

Serbian priests will do this (I had the great honour to be a Serbian priest for almost 20 years.) But they make sure that ONLY pieces from the NI and KA portions in the Chalice are given to the people and they carefully avoid the non-consecrated particles.

Why do they place ALL the particles into the chalice prior to communion? It is because for many months outside of the four fasting periods there are no communicants so the priest simply places both the portions of the Lamb and all the particles from the diskos into the Chalice before his own communion. He does not have to worry about any other communicants after him. Because this became the norm they continue to do this even on the days where there *are* communicants.

It has never occurred to me that anything other than the Lamb itself is changed into the Body of Christ.

All the other unconsecrated particles on the diskos are not swept into the holy Chalice until AFTER communion. This takes place when the priest is praying: "Wash away, O Lord, the sins of all those commemorated here, by Thy precious Blood, through the prayers of Thy Saints."

Now I plan to go back and read the thread again to see what the clergy who have contributed think about this.

Most GOA priests I know put the rest of the particles into the chalice immediately after they receive, and BEFORE the people receive. NOT afterwards...

At least one of the priests I know who puts all the particles in before Communion will only give people pieces from the Amnos (he doesn't break the Amnos beforehand because he puts all the particles in - this way he knows which is which within the Holy Cup, and will only cut from the Amnos using the spoon for communion of the Faithful).

Serbian priests will do this (I had the great honour to be a Serbian priest for almost 20 years.) But they make sure that ONLY pieces from the NI and KA portions in the Chalice are given to the people and they carefully avoid the non-consecrated particles.

Why do they place ALL the particles into the chalice prior to communion? It is because for many months outside of the four fasting periods there are no communicants so the priest simply places both the portions of the Lamb and all the particles from the diskos into the Chalice before his own communion. He does not have to worry about any other communicants after him. Because this became the norm they continue to do this even on the days where there *are* communicants.

Well, this is kind of a lot wrapped up into a small paragraph. This statement touches issues such as frequent communion, when we should be fasting and how, how much confession a person should be going to and WHEN, etc. To say that the priest is putting the entire diskos into the chalice b/c he knows that no one is going to receive after him is a BIG statement with a lot of baggage. I also don't believe it really validates anything. It's interesting to see how the practice influenced putting in the particles or not, but what does it say theologically? This is what i'm really after. If you have any thoughts on that, i'd love to read them...

When a priest runs out of communion, what does he usually do? He adds more wine. The new wine, then becomes the body and blood.

Whether it is transformed or whether it just dilutes the little bit left is a debate.

Quote

I think part of the distinction that I was missing is the whole concept of the Bread still retaining its essence, yet also becoming the body of christ. So, when the doughnut falls in the chalice, it is STILL a doughnut, yet also the body of christ. just like the bread is bread, but still the body. So, same thing with a fly. it is still a fly, but also the body.

I don't agree that anything falling in the chalice becomes the body of Christ.

When a priest runs out of communion, what does he usually do? He adds more wine. The new wine, then becomes the body and blood.

Whether it is transformed or whether it just dilutes the little bit left is a debate.

What debate? Who debates it? You don't have to give me references if it's easier for you to just tell me. I just want to know so I can start looking stuff up. I did provide you with Coniaris' stuff on this, and he quoted Symeon the New Theologian...so...

I think part of the distinction that I was missing is the whole concept of the Bread still retaining its essence, yet also becoming the body of christ. So, when the doughnut falls in the chalice, it is STILL a doughnut, yet also the body of christ. just like the bread is bread, but still the body. So, same thing with a fly. it is still a fly, but also the body.

I don't agree that anything falling in the chalice becomes the body of Christ.

When a priest runs out of communion, what does he usually do? He adds more wine. The new wine, then becomes the body and blood.

Whether it is transformed or whether it just dilutes the little bit left is a debate.

What debate? Who debates it? You don't have to give me references if it's easier for you to just tell me. I just want to know so I can start looking stuff up. I did provide you with Coniaris' stuff on this, and he quoted Symeon the New Theologian...so...

I seem to recall a vague debate about some local practices where the priest would not commune babies at the presanctified because it was not "blood" but rather "just" wine, whereas most people would understand that the comingling makes the wine the blood, I believe. So the question is, does contact with it transform it, or is it a question of dilution in that you could add wine to the blood and the blood particles would be further spread out in the wine. I personally think it transforms it but I don't have the references to back that up.

I didn't read all of the thread as I am short for time, just wanted to respond to this point, so I haven't read the excerpts. Hopefully I will get time.

Quote

I think part of the distinction that I was missing is the whole concept of the Bread still retaining its essence, yet also becoming the body of christ. So, when the doughnut falls in the chalice, it is STILL a doughnut, yet also the body of christ. just like the bread is bread, but still the body. So, same thing with a fly. it is still a fly, but also the body.

So what happens to it...?

What you are missing is what the Latins would call valid matter. You cannot consecrate rice bread, and you can't consecrate say slivo. If I dared to read those prayers over slivo and rice cakes, it would NOT become the body of Christ, because wheat flour and grape wine are what we use. So a doughnut falling in would not be valid matter since it has eggs and sugar, etc. Orthodox may like to say they don't like terms like valid matter, but the concept is still there. I couldn't make chrism from peanut oil, etc etc etc.

A fly falling in or a doughnut falling in (God forbid...not sure how that would happen) would just be a doughnut or fly covered in holy communion.

Now I realize I am thinking in streams here, but if wine were added to dilute the chalice and since it is the same matter as Communion, maybe then by that argument, non consecrated particples being added in to the chalice would become the body if they touch the blood...but I don't know, that sounds odd too. Hmmmmmmm.

I think the difference with adding wine to the chalice when running out, or wine to the pre-consecrated Body & Blood at Presanctified (remember, the Amnos has the Blood of Christ poured into it after consecration, so they're both present) again falls back to intent and purpose: you are adding a substance that is appropriate (wine) to the existing consecrated matter in order to complement the Eucharist. I don't think the same conclusions that would apply to, say, a foreign object in the chalice (doughnut, fly) would apply to adding Communion Wine for the expressed purpose of having enough Communion.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

I think the difference with adding wine to the chalice when running out, or wine to the pre-consecrated Body & Blood at Presanctified (remember, the Amnos has the Blood of Christ poured into it after consecration, so they're both present) again falls back to intent and purpose: you are adding a substance that is appropriate (wine) to the existing consecrated matter in order to complement the Eucharist. I don't think the same conclusions that would apply to, say, a foreign object in the chalice (doughnut, fly) would apply to adding Communion Wine for the expressed purpose of having enough Communion.

Whereas I am not sure I could say the particles are not the body of Christ, I think after discussion with some people in my church that I agree with my friend who said it would be prudent to only commune people from the amnos given that we should all commune from the one loaf.

Whereas I am not sure I could say the particles are not the body of Christ,

Father, I would not share your hesitancy; I would deny that the particles of commemoration become the Body of Christ.

I was taught in Serbia that if we misjudged the number of communicants, especially on, say, the First Saturday of the Great Fast when the entire Church communes, that we were NOT to use the particles to commune the faithful but we were to take another prosphora and quickly cut another Lamb and consecrate it.

Likewise it would be quite wrong to keep the particles and place them in the tabernacle and then use them for communion for the sick at home or in hospital. The sick would not be receiving communion but bread.

I don't agree that anything falling in the chalice becomes the body of Christ.

So what happens to it...?

Well, I have seen priests dealing with babies that are really upset and refusing to allow the spoon into their mouth. They dip the tip of their finger into the Precious Blood and pop their finger into the baby's mouth.

It would be rather strange, in my humble view, to think that the tip of the priest's finger had become the Body of Christ because it was dipped in the Precious Blood.

My dad just emailed me the article from professor Fontoulis on the subject, and he (dad) noted that he's been told that Trembellas agrees with Fontoulis, but he hasn't had the opportunity to verify that.

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

I'm curious about what other people do at the epiclesis--when you (or your priest) says make this bread the body of thy Christ, do you (does he) cross just the amnos, or the whole diskos, or perhaps making the sign of the cross over the diskos is not universal practice? I don't have much exposure outside my own received practice but some of you HC types seem to. I'm also curious about Fr Ambrose's Serbian practice.

Please excuse me for interjecting myself into this very learned discussion that is mostly far over my head BUT

I must reply to the Irish Hermit's statement " It would be strange for the priest's finger to become the Body of christ"

Is not the very purpose of the Eucharist to transform us into the Body of Christ ? - not just the finger, but the whole person ? ? ?

The truth is that our Lord said " The Spirit moves where it will" like the wind. We cannot see the Holy Spirit; but only if we are attentive can we see the effects of His appearance. The Lord came to give Life. We should recieve it with awe and joy, not dialectics.

I'm curious about what other people do at the epiclesis--when you (or your priest) says make this bread the body of thy Christ, do you (does he) cross just the amnos, or the whole diskos, or perhaps making the sign of the cross over the diskos is not universal practice? I don't have much exposure outside my own received practice but some of you HC types seem to. I'm also curious about Fr Ambrose's Serbian practice.

Father, these details can vary from village to village in Serbia (and from seminary to seminary.)

When I am saying "and make this bread....." I have my arm outrstretched and am pointing with my open and half-upturned hand at the Lamb on the diskos. I am aware that I am pointing to the Lamb alone and not to any other particles on the diskos. Then for the sign of the cross, I make it over the diskos but again I am aware that this concerns the Lamb and nothing else.

When I am saying "and that which is in this Chalice..." well that's not in question...

When I am saying "changing them both...." I am making a cross over both the diskos and the Chalice, from the left side of the diskos to the right side of the Chalice, forming a kind of tent over both of them.

I have stayed out this conversation until now because I have not really formed an opinion on this one way or another. Bishops and Priest I respect for their liturgical knowledge do a variety of practices which leads me to believe that this is one of those things where there is legitimate variation in the tradition. The common factor to all these practices is that what is on the diskos is treated with reverence.

I think I have seen it all. Whole lamb going in; just the KA; NI, KA, IC in; Everything on the diskos; Everything on the Diskos and then some.

One thing I have noticed is the traditional size of the lamb and the size of the diskos many times dictates the practice. In many of the middle eastern parishes it is common that a very thin lamb is used because of the bread offered so therefore if there a large number of communicants it is necessary to add all that is on the discos in order to commune everyone.

As for me if I was the priest, I would make sure that I have a large enough lamb to just put the Amnos in.

As for me if I was the priest, I would make sure that I have a large enough lamb to just put the Amnos in.

That's what my priest does; consistently has the largest Amnos I've seen - but of course, more people commune here than in most places I've been.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Our liturgics professor today actually talked about this! But unfortunately I was not there to hear it (I was late for 30 minutes), so I don't have the full scoop. When I confer with my comrades i'll give you guys an explanation based on a FEW questions I asked, and what my fellow classmates got from the lecture....(forthcoming...)

According to the Jordanville Clergy Book, in the section titled, "Concerning the Breaking of the Holy Lamb":

Quote

...Taking the portion "IC", therefore, place it into the holy chalice. And divide the portion "XC" among the prists and deacons. Divide the other two portions, namely "NI" and "KA", among the communicants in small particles, as many as may be sufficient according to thine own estimation. But of the portion of the most holy Theotokos, or of the nine orders of saints, or any others which are upon the holy diskos, thou shalt in no wise communicate anyone; only of the two portions which remain of the Holy Lamb shalt thou give in Communion. ...

After Communion it reads...

Quote

The deacon then holdeth the holy diskos over the holy chalice [while emptying the remmaining Holy Bread into the chalice], saying these Resurrection Hymns...

My Greek Hierarchical Divine Liturgy Book for the Litugy of Saint Basil for clergy says the same, with different wording, for example, after the laity communes, it says,

Quote

The Deacon wipes the remining particles from the diskos into the chalice with the sponge, saying softly, "By Thy precious Blood, O Lord, wash away the sins of those remembered here, through the prayers of all Thy Saints." The Deacon places into the chalice all stray particles, careful to leave not one upon the antimins; covers the chalice with its veil; & puts the aer, communion cloths, spear, spoon, & asterisk on the diskos.

I have been taught since I began exploring Orthodoxy that only the Lamb (amnos) is consecrated, and that this is why it is called the "Lamb" - it truly becomes Christ, the Lamb of God. The commemoration particles are just that but they are not called "the Lamb" because they are not consecrated. I was taught that the Mother of God, the ranks of Angels and Saints, and the living and departed are commemorated using these particles, and that they are placed around the Lamb, symbolising the whole communion of the Church, both those physically present and those absent, both the living and the departed, gathered around Christ, the Head. As has been pointed out, the rubrics call for the particles to be placed in the chalice after the Communion of the people, and only the Lamb is elevated at "Holy Things for the holy", and my parish priest was taught to make a small Cross over the Lamb at "and make this bread...", so I never encountered anything that made me think for a second that anybody would consider the commemoration particles to also be consecrated. It just never occurred to me that anybody would think this.

As for why such care is given to the consumption of the particles, well this means nothing more than they have been put to holy use and ought to be treated with reverence. The laity are taught to do the same with the antidoron, not simply allowing crumbs to fall to the floor. One sees them checking their hands, sucking up crumbs. This does not mean that we believe the antidoron is consecrated. Also, as it possible that some crumbs from the Lamb may have become detached on the diskos, it seems prudent to empty everything that remains on the diskos and antimins after communion into the chalice, and to ensure this with the sponge.

With no disrespect intended, the concept of any and anything coming into contact with the Holy Things becoming the Body and Blood of Christ seems to me to teeter on the edge of a magical approach to the Mysteries. A fly landing in the chalice does not become the Body of Christ. The spoon does not become the Body of Christ. Water added to the chalice does not become the Blood of Christ - certainly, it makes the Blood go further if need be by increasing the amount of fluid, but this is by diffusion of particles, surely, and not through some sort of magical passing on of essence through contact. Otherwise, in order to receive Communion, we would never need to serve a Liturgy ever again. We could just touch multiple loaves to a portion of the Holy Body each week, and place a tiny drop of the precious Blood in a massive vat of water, and we would be set up for years to come. As for the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, when I have witnessed the Holy Things prepared for reservation, the Holy Body has been infused with the Precious Blood slowly poured onto it with the spoon, so the question of whether the wine in the chalice becomes the Blood of Christ becomes moot in one sense. It ought to be treated with reverence and fully consumed because of what it contains and what it is used for but the question of turning things into the Body and Blood of Christ strikes me as being in the same sort of of area as the question of whether a consecration happens if a priest says the dominical words and epiklesis as he walks past a shop window where bread and wine are displayed. It betrays a very interetsing understanding of what is happening at the Divine Liturgy.

In Christ,the uneducated Subdeacon Michael, who speaks only from limited experience and what seems to him in keeping with what he has been taught by those who know better than him

Logged

'There is nothing upon earth holier, higher, grander, more solemn, more life-giving than the Liturgy. The church, at this particular time, becomes an earthly heaven; those who officiate represent Christ Himself, the angels, the cherubim, seraphim and apostles.' - St John of Kronstadt

With no disrespect intended, the concept of any and anything coming into contact with the Holy Things becoming the Body and Blood of Christ seems to me to teeter on the edge of a magical approach to the Mysteries. A fly landing in the chalice does not become the Body of Christ. The spoon does not become the Body of Christ. Water added to the chalice does not become the Blood of Christ - certainly, it makes the Blood go further if need be by increasing the amount of fluid, but this is by diffusion of particles, surely, and not through some sort of magical passing on of essence through contact. Otherwise, in order to receive Communion, we would never need to serve a Liturgy ever again. We could just touch multiple loaves to a portion of the Holy Body each week, and place a tiny drop of the precious Blood in a massive vat of water, and we would be set up for years to come.

In the various churches I've attended - both Greek and Russian - I can only remember seeing the particles being placed into the chalice after the communion of the people.

That's what we were instructed. Before communion only the Lamb is added to the Holy Chalice. The particles are only added after communion of the faithful. I was told only Eastern Rite Catholics consecrate every piece of bread on the diskos.

Serbski, I hate to burst your bubble, but I spoke with my proistamenos, who took Liturgics, Sacramental Theology, and Teleturgics from Calivas, and Calivas told them that only the Amnos is the Body of Christ; in fact, in the context of the conversation, he suggested that Fr. Alkiviadis would be greatly troubled hearing that a teleturgics professor at the school was teaching that all particles are the Body of Christ.

I can confirm this. Fr. Calivas guest taught a session of my teleturgics class, in which he gave a right proper discourse on this subject.

Of course, none of this would have applied to the early liturgy (i.e. up to the 8th century), wherein communion of lay people was by means of separate species.

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)